Marcus v. Collins Building & Construction Co.

27 Misc. 784, 57 N.Y.S. 737
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided April 15, 1899·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Leventritt, J.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether -a certain paper is a lease or a mere agreement for a lease. As the paper contains all' the terms and conditions necessary to a valid binding contract between the parties, the unfulfilled transcription of the same terms and conditions into a more formal document' does not impair the validity of the original contract. Therefore, what was paid under it was rent. The fact that the. [785]*785amount was exactly one month’s installment arid that the plaintiff accepted a receipt as for rent, weigh heavily against his - attempt to regain the money on the ground that it was a deposit.

The recovery of the money paid was, therefore, properly denied • him. The judgment should be affirmed.

Fbeedmae, P. J., and MaoLeae, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Marcus v. Collins Building & Construction Co., 27 Misc. 784, 57 N.Y.S. 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

27 Misc. 784 (Marcus v. Collins Building & Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Toms v. Hellman
1 P.2d 31 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Levin v. Saroff
201 P. 961 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Kelly v. Stem
79 Misc. 620 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Snowber v. Loeb
76 Misc. 556 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)